White House's Purpose in Avoiding "Islamic Terrorism" Label

[IGotWorms 4,060]

Thought this might help out some of the slower Geeks:

 

WASHINGTON President Obama chooses his words with particular care when he addresses the volatile connections between religion and terrorism. He and his aides have avoided labeling acts of brutal violence by Al Qaeda, the so-called Islamic State and their allies as Muslim terrorism or describing their ideology as Islamic or jihadist.

 

With remarkable consistency including at a high-profile White House meeting this week, Countering Violent Extremism they have favored bland, generic terms over anything that explicitly connects attacks or plots to Islam.

 

Obama aides say there is a strategic logic to his vocabulary: Labeling noxious beliefs and mass murder as Islamic would play right into the hands of terrorists who claim that the United States is at war with Islam itself. The last thing the president should do, they say, is imply that the United States lumps the worlds 1.5 billion Muslims with vicious terrorist groups.

 

...

 

Addressing the extremism conference on Wednesday, Mr. Obama acknowledged the complaints and took pains to try to explain his approach.

 

Leading up to this summit, theres been a fair amount of debate in the press and among pundits about the words we use to describe and frame this challenge, so I want to be very clear about how I see it, the president said. Al Qaeda and ISIL and groups like it are desperate for legitimacy. They try to portray themselves as religious leaders, holy warriors in defense of Islam.

 

But Mr. Obama said that we must never accept the premise that they put forward, because it is a lie. The operatives of Al Qaeda and the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, are not religious leaders theyre terrorists, he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/19/us/politics/faulted-for-avoiding-islamic-labels-white-house-cites-a-strategic-logic.html?&hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0&referrer=

[KSB2424 3,148]

 

The operatives of Al Qaeda and the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, are not religious leaders theyre terrorists, he said.

 

 

I understand wanting to not play into the propaganda of the Islamic State. However they are going to use whatever you say, no matter how PC you want to make it. It's just an excuse to be politically correct to not "offend" somebody. Lets be honest here.

 

The above quote is simply incorrect and is central to why what the "West" is doing will not work. They ARE religious leaders AND they are terrorists. They are both. They are religious leaders of an orthodox sector / subset of Islam that takes the book of the Qu'ran literally. The longer we refuse to acknowledge that fact the worse our strategy will be.

[avoiding injuries 1,620]

I'd buy into it more if he and his administration had the same consistency with all religions.

[NewbieJr 541]

It's shocking that they even had to release this statement. But when idiots like RP and Drobeski exist and want to characterize all 1.5 billion as terrorists, I guess they have to speak to lowest common denominator.

 

It's really frightening that guys like them get to vote.

[drobeski 3,061]

the leader of isis is the caliph

 

he is nothing but religion, idiots.

[HenryHill9323 65]

I see Obama still hasn't read the article in the Atlantic.

 

Poor clueless bastage.

[HenryHill9323 65]

If Obama doesn't want to paint a religion with a wide brush, why did he bring up Christianity and the crusades?

 

Hmmmmm..........

[NewbieJr 541]

Look at the Tard Twins trying to justify their actions after Obama just b!tch-slapped both of them.

[IGotWorms 4,060]

 

I understand wanting to not play into the propaganda of the Islamic State. However they are going to use whatever you say, no matter how PC you want to make it. It's just an excuse to be politically correct to not "offend" somebody. Lets be honest here.

 

The above quote is simply incorrect and is central to why what the "West" is doing will not work. They ARE religious leaders AND they are terrorists. They are both. They are religious leaders of an orthodox sector / subset of Islam that takes the book of the Qu'ran literally. The longer we refuse to acknowledge that fact the worse our strategy will be.

It's not just hippy dippy feel good stuff. There are very real strategic reasons to avoid the language that the righties so desperately want to hear:

 

Daniel Benjamin, who served as the State Departments top counterterrorism official from 2009 to 2012, said he believed that the dispute was a pseudocontroversy driven largely by domestic politics, even if it has produced some clumsy moments in the White House press room. What the debate has missed, he said, is that any American president has to think about how his words are received overseas.

 

Our allies against ISIS in the region are out there every day saying, This is not Islam, said Mr. Benjamin, now at Dartmouth. We dont want to undermine them. Any good it would do to trumpet Islamic radicalism would be overwhelmed by the damage it would do to those relationships.

[KSB2424 3,148]

And it's not like anyone is saying or wants the leaders to acknowledge what happening in the world is the fight on Islam. Simply to acknowledge the truth, reality of the world. Islamic Terrorism or Islamic Extremism. Because, yeah, thats what it is.

 

Doesn't the terrorism or extremism part differenciate them from the other non-violent progressive muslims? I don't get it. If I'm part of a group of anything and a portion of my "group" is doing violent things then why would I be offended if they called it the <insertgroupname> extremists. ?

 

Nobody, at least hardly anyone is suggesting for the President to call out for a WAR ON ISLAM!@#!

[IGotWorms 4,060]

Conversely what do you get out of labeling it "Islamic terrorism" and the like?

 

Folks like RP get hard over it but that's about it.

 

No other benefit, and possibly a fair amount of detriment. It's a simple strategic decision.

[HenryHill9323 65]

Conversely what do you get out of labeling it "Islamic terrorism" and the like?

 

Folks like RP get hard over it but that's about it.

 

No other benefit, and possibly a fair amount of detriment. It's a simple strategic decision.

Because it is the truth.

 

Unfortunately, libtards like you, Ducky, and Obama are allergic to the truth.

[NewbieJr 541]

It's called diplomacy. And tact. There are lunatics all over the world. Religious zealots. That's the difference between a Harvard grad who climbed to the highest position in the world and two guys who sell vacuum cleaners and install receptacles.

[drobeski 3,061]

moderate muslims across the globe, including the egypt leader are not afraid to call a spade a spade. why would a moderate muslim be offended by the term islamic terrorist ? Maybe they arent so moderate ?

 

Its an Islamist sympathizing administration, its really as simple as that. Fools like newbs snuff etc can play the deny game all you want, your completely ignorrant on the subject and complete hacks so your complete idiocy is understandable.

[IGotWorms 4,060]

Because it is the truth.

 

Unfortunately, libtards like you, Ducky, and Obama are allergic to the truth.

So you can't point to a single tangible benefit to calling it "Islamic terrorism" or "Muslim terrorism" or whatever term it is that you're constantly butthurt over Obummer not using?

[KSB2424 3,148]

Conversely what do you get out of labeling it "Islamic terrorism" and the like?

 

 

No other benefit, and possibly a fair amount of detriment. It's a simple strategic decision.

 

The label is just a label, its semantics really. And I'm okay with that if its just window dressing in public IF in the private war room our leaders know that battling this orhtodox form of Islam is a root cause of how to fight this battle. However quotes like this:

 

 

The operatives of Al Qaeda and the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, are not religious leaders theyre terrorists, he said.

 

 

Concern me more than using some label in public. This infers our Administration is way off base in strategy and has their heads in the polical correct sands. Comments like that are much more concerning than some label.

[HenryHill9323 65]

So you can't point to a single tangible benefit to calling it "Islamic terrorism" or "Muslim terrorism" or whatever term it is that you're constantly butthurt over Obummer not using?

I'm shocked you see no benefit from speaking the truth.

[KSB2424 3,148]

The whole issue / problem is rooted in relgion, specifically Islam. This is a fight, a civil religious war, between the Islamic State and the Progressive Muslims.

 

The Islamic State, Al Queda, etc. is growing and it is a sect of Islam that instead of moving forward with their religion like all others, theyve actually reverted back to the basic, ancient, orthodox form of the religion and thinks thats the verision hat ALL should follow. And are on a rampage to do it.

 

The Progressive Muslims are mostly those in the West and certain other Middle eastern countries who have reformed their religion and its tenants into modern society. Like Christians, Jews, and most all others have reformed over the centuries / years.

 

This is and should be a Civil War between the Islamic State and the Progressive Muslims. This is what's happening. This is the root of it all. It IS defined and rooted in the religion. It's central to the whole thing.

 

By pretending it's not.....is dangerous.

[drobeski 3,061]

a silent majority is useless, see hitler

 

 

idiots

[Sho Nuff 720]

Yes...all articles should read like this to make the hacks hapoy.

 

"The muslim isis muslims blew up a restaurant in another act of extremely muslimy islamic terrorism by muslims."

[HenryHill9323 65]

Yes...all articles should read like this to make the hacks hapoy.

 

"The muslim isis muslims blew up a restaurant in another act of extremely muslimy islamic terrorism by muslims."

An article stating the truth like that would make your pointy head explode, Hachopotamus.

[IGotWorms 4,060]

I'm shocked you see no benefit from speaking the truth.

I'm shocked you can't see there are situations where 1) the "truth" isn't that simple; and 2) bluntly speaking the "truth" can hurt you.

 

When your ex-wife used to ask you if her ass looked fat in a particular dress, did you say yes? Even a 'tard like you can do the cost/benefit analysis on that one.

 

Similarly we could say, as a nation:

1) China isn't our friend

2) Russia definitely isn't our friend

3) Ditto Saudi Arabia

4) Pakistan is really our enemy

 

But there's no benefit to that. None at all. So while those statements are a lot closer to the "truth" than what we typically convey to the world, we keep 'em under wraps anyway.

 

Get it?

[RLLD 4,275]

Well one can hardly argue with the approach of the WH on this one, its not like the policy isnt stopping swarms of Muslims from flocking to ISIS.....right?

 

How arrogant to believe that anything Obama has to say matters one little bit to these people.....

[HenryHill9323 65]

I'm shocked you can't see there are situations where 1) the "truth" isn't that simple; and 2) bluntly speaking the "truth" can hurt you.

 

When your ex-wife used to ask you if her ass looked fat in a particular dress, did you say yes? Even a 'tard like you can do the cost/benefit analysis on that one.

 

Similarly we could say, as a nation:

1) China isn't our friend

2) Russia definitely isn't our friend

3) Ditto Saudi Arabia

4) Pakistan is really our enemy

 

But there's no benefit to that. None at all. So while those statements are a lot closer to the "truth" than what we typically convey to the world, we keep 'em under wraps anyway.

 

Get it?

What was the benefit of invoking the crusades? I'll hang up and listen.

[drobeski 3,061]

does one get to second guess the "purpose" of the white house, when the president himself has stated to the UN none the less that "the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet" ?

 

 

[NewbieJr 541]

 

The Republican paranoia is at an all-time high.

 

He wasn't born in this country

He's a socialist

He's a Muslim.

 

Holy fock he owns you ass holes.

[HenryHill9323 65]

What was the benefit of invoking the crusades? I'll hang up and listen.

Worms?

 

There are about 2 Billion Christians around the world, none of which participated in the crusades.

 

What is the benefit of equating those 2 Billion to mooslim terrorists?

[NewbieJr 541]

Did Worms mention that he approved of the mentioning of the Crusades? I must have missed it.

 

See, RP, your problem is, your conservative tv channels and websites tell you things that they take issue with and are fake outraged about. That gets you all in a lather. Then you come here and act like Worms, or MDC, or I said them. And ask us to explain or justify the thing that got you riled up. LOL Don't you see how retarded that is? None of us are speech writers for Obama.

 

He obviously said it to remind everyone that one of the ugliest religious battles ever was the Crusades. To remind people that Muslims aren't the only ones who kill over their religious beliefs. That being said, did anyone here say they thought that was a great comparison? I don't remember anyone. But you could surely direct me to the post if I'm wrong. Personally, I think it was a dumb analogy, since it goes back to the middle ages. But I often think things that Presidents say are dumb.

[drobeski 3,061]

Did Worms mention that he approved of the mentioning of the Crusades? I must have missed it.

 

See, RP, your problem is, your conservative tv channels and websites tell you things that they take issue with and are fake outraged about. That gets you all in a lather. Then you come here and act like Worms, or MDC, or I said them. And ask us to explain or justify the thing that got you riled up. LOL Don't you see how retarded that is? None of us are speech writers for Obama.

 

He obviously said it to remind everyone that one of the ugliest religious battles ever was the Crusades. To remind people that Muslims aren't the only ones who kill over their religious beliefs. That being said, did anyone here say they thought that was a great comparison? I don't remember anyone. But you could surely direct me to the post if I'm wrong. Personally, I think it was a dumb analogy, since it goes back to the middle ages. But I often think things that Presidents say are dumb.

this thread is about the white house, not worms, not you. You dont mattah!

[jerryskids 6,925]

So you can't point to a single tangible benefit to calling it "Islamic terrorism" or "Muslim terrorism" or whatever term it is that you're constantly butthurt over Obummer not using?

I've answered this before. The question is how much pressure you want to put on the Muslim community to whack ISIS. These days ISIS is doing a good job on their own by burning other Muslims tho.

[NewbieJr 541]

No sh!t, fatfuck So why is RP jumping up and down desperately trying to get Worms to explain something Obama said? Do you even bother reading the idiotic things your IQ mate, RP, asks?

[RLLD 4,275]

I've answered this before. The question is how much pressure you want to put on the Muslim community to whack ISIS. These days ISIS is doing a good job on their own by burning other Muslims tho.

 

I find it telling that some NC goon murders three and Muslims want to protest, demand the justice department investigate, but where are they with all the reports of atrocities against Muslims in the middle east?

[HenryHill9323 65]

 

I find it telling that some NC goon murders three and Muslims want to protest, demand the justice department investigate, but where are they with all the reports of atrocities against Muslims in the middle east?

Mooslims killing mooslims is ok.

 

Kinda like Obama is cool with black kids killing black kids all day, every day. But once a black kid gets shot attacking a white cop he has to bring the full force of the Fed govt down on the cop's head.

[IGotWorms 4,060]

What was the benefit of invoking the crusades? I'll hang up and listen.

That was probably unnecessary, I agree.

 

Now would you like to actually answer my question?

[HenryHill9323 65]

That was probably unnecessary, I agree.

 

Now would you like to actually answer my question?

Already answered.

[DankNuggs 305]

It's shocking that they even had to release this statement. But when idiots like RP and Drobeski exist and want to characterize all 1.5 billion as terrorists, I guess they have to speak to lowest common denominator.

 

It's really frightening that guys like them get to vote.

Its a strawman, no one is implying 1.5 billion muslims are terrorists. Its disconcerting how the resistance is only tied to their own tragedies (Jordan, etc.)

 

What the president is doing with these comments is trying to create distance from having to deal with the situation...

[IGotWorms 4,060]

Already answered.

I must have missed that post. Can you direct me to it please?

[IGotWorms 4,060]

Its a strawman, no one is implying 1.5 billion muslims are terrorists. Its disconcerting how the resistance is only tied to their own tragedies (Jordan, etc.)

 

What the president is doing with these comments is trying to create distance from having to deal with the situation...

I think that is absolutely incorrect on both fronts.

 

People like RP frequently imply that all Muslims are terrorists, or at the very least that all Muslims sympathize with terrorists or somehow have to answer for what the radical extremists do.

 

On the second point, I believe the White House's strategy is to maximize cooperation with moderate Muslim nations and that the best way to do that is not use language that makes it seem like we are at war with Islam generally? How is that so hard to undrstand? It's as simple as things get in international diplomacy

[NewbieJr 541]

I also feel that Obama and the administration ARE dealing with the situation. Believe me, the general public doesn't know everything, nor should they. And because the administration understands diplomacy, they aren't going to come out and have a hissy fit and condemn every Muslim on the planet, like retards like RP and Drobs wants him to.

[HenryHill9323 65]

I think that is absolutely incorrect on both fronts.

 

People like RP frequently imply that all Muslims are terrorists, or at the very least that all Muslims sympathize with terrorists or somehow have to answer for what the radical extremists do.

 

On the second point, I believe the White House's strategy is to maximized cooperation with moderate Muslim nations and that the best way to do that is not use language that makes it seem like we are at war with Islam generally? How is that so hard to undrstand? It's as simple as things get in international diplomacy

Calling mooslim terrorists mooslim terrorists means all mooslims are terrorists?

 

That would be like claiming all lawyers are dumbasses just because you are a dumbass.